Child Neglect in Adolescents: Heterogeneity of Caregiver Risks

Recent research has advanced exploration of developmental stage and age-related distinctions in child maltreatment. The occurrence of child maltreatment is likely to vary in etiologic risk factors and in manifestation according to age of the child victim. This study aimed to investigate heterogeneity in caregiver risks in cases of child neglect in adolescents. A latent class analysis was performed to identify distinct groups, utilizing a constellation of identified caregiver risk factors. Subsequently, to explore distinguishing characteristics of the identified classes, we examined their relationship to multiple child welfare variables (e.g., maltreatment type;  placement status).

Methods: The study used data from the nationwide longitudinal dataset, the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-being (NSCAW). We used a subsample of youth who were child welfare-involved due to reported neglect or emotional abuse (N = 511; Mean age_(Wave1) = 12.60, linearized SE = .09; 53% girls). Caregiver’s risks included: substance abuse, legal involvement, cognitive/physical impairment, abuse history, poor parenting, DV, stress, and poverty at Wave 1. Placement status (out of home {OOH} versus in-home) was measured at Wave 1 and 3, and the length of OOH from Waves 2-3. To test if there were discrete classes of caregiver risks, latent class analysis (LCA) was conducted. Subsequent analyses examined whether the classes were related to abuse type and placement status. To address complex sampling design, Taylor Series linearization methods were applied in all analysis (using MPlus software).

Results: LCA resulted in four classes: Log likelihood = -3948.64; Adj-BIC = 8249.43; Entropy = .92; Vuong-Lo-Mendel Rubin LRT = 114.54, p = .69  Class 1 caregivers were more likely to have no other risk but history of abuse. On the other hand, Class 4 was differentiated by several risks: recent arrests, serious mental health problems, inappropriate parenting, low social support, and problems in paying necessities, plus abuse history. In addition, one group, Class 2, manifested no risk factors, while Class 3 was characterized by low social support plus abuse history. In the longitudinal analysis, OOH placement was different across the classes at Wave 3 (χ² = 43.29, p = .012), though there were no differences at Wave1. At Wave 3, children from Class 4 were more likely to be in OOH than those with Class1 or 2 caregivers (post-hoc: relative-risk ratio = 3.38 and 19.96, respectively, p_s = .000); children with Class1 caregivers were more likely to be in OOH than those with Class2 caregivers (post-hoc: relative-risk ratio = 18.74, p = .000). Further, the proportion of days in OOH between Wave 2 and 3 was different across the classes (Wald F = 6.41, p = .013). Class membership, however, was not different by abuse type.

Implications: The findings extend the literature on developmental stage distinctions of maltreatment, which is critical for understanding the perhaps unique manifestation of child neglect in adolescents and the precipitating risks involved. Diverse patterns of caregiver risks emerged; furthermore they were associated with subsequent OOH placement situations. Our poster will also convey the research and social service implications of the importance of modeling heterogeneity using a person-centered approach.